Transportation Policy in Canada

[Northern Light]

I’m responding to @urbansky and others’ comments here, and not in the newest-created thread, because a) I don’t think we need more new threads and b) for the moment, I’m acquiescing to @urbansky ’s desire to limit discussion in the VIA Rail thread to the “here and now” of VIA’s network (although I’m not sure why we can’t discuss what VIA might become, or ought to become, in the same forum as we discuss what it is).

The question that we seem to drift into is “How do we advance passenger rail beyond what VIA Rail provides”

First of all, I find it outrageous how VIA’s mandate is kept in the hands of federal bureaucrats and politicians, with so little rational debate or legislative direction. We need a Canada Passenger Rail Act, and it needs to tell the government the rules for having or not having passenger rail service... and not leaving that to Cabinet without criteria or guidelines or public input. Unless we fix that, nothing else will ever work well. VIA is an imperfect and illogical portfolio of a smattering of non-corridor services, with those services placed outside its mandate forced into an unreasonable “do it yourself” proposition. What it does, it does well.... but it’s Cinderella not being allowed to attend the ball, lest a Prince might actually fall for its charms.

We need some logical path forward (and again some enabling legislation) around services which might not fit a federal vision but which are desired more locally. There is an Amtrak precedent - the 403b approach. Canada might not copy it word for word, but the absence of a documented, legislated process which allows a non-federal entity to propose and sponsor a passenger service, on a level playing field which transparently balances private railway interests against the public interest of the service, is again a profound flaw in Canada‘s transportation policy.

I do not understand why (other than government‘s bullying of VIA) one would not empower VIA to go after every possible sponsor who might be willing to underwrite passenger rail on a regional basis.The removal of these services from VIA’s mandate in past decades was wrongheaded and likely done with an eye to killing passenger rail, period. (This is the Stockholm syndrome bit.... VIA has to pretend its mandate makes sense, where any more reasonable and conventional business model presumes aggressive pursuit of markets). Not every proposal will make economic sense, but batting these back to the Provinces is unhelpful.

As a case study - There are rumours that GO Transit may eventually assume commuter oriented service Guelph-London to backstop an abdication of a proper regional service. One could envision a “GO Intercity” entity which might serve eg Toronto-Kitcherer-London(-Sarnia?), Toronto - Niagara, Toronto-Kingston, Toronto-Timmins, and Toronto-North Bay- Sault Ste Marie routes with equipment schedules and amenities that look more like VIA than a commuter train. Even if Metrolinx took that on as a Provincial network, Why would VIA not want to be the contractual operator, bidding against the like of Bombardier, DB! etc as Amtrak does on Regional contracts?

It seems reasonable to write off the country’s most critical freight lines as no longer able to support passenger trains (other than non-time sensitive, “cruise” operations) given they are run with maxed-out capacity and given that it would be difficult to inject public investment into these routes to add incremental capacity without creating operational and shareholder tensions. That to me rules out any hope of a daily direct Toronto-Sudbury service..... it just won’t mesh with freight on that route (I won’t recycle my views on Montreal-Toronto, but I may not feel the same on that specific lines as the transcons). However, there are routes where freight operations are not at that level, where mixed freight-passenger service could be viable.

Toronto-North Bay is an example. That was, in fact, a VIA route not an OnR route. Sault Ste Marie- North Bay passenger and Timmins-north Bay could both feed to that (with substantial capital investment, admittedly). It’s not wrong to look at the business case for that.

I don’t accept that VIA’s mandate boundaries are so sacred as to leave VIA out of the growth picture. Once the long distance fleet wears out, making the Halifax Winnipeg and Vancouver operating bases redundant, VIA could see its mandate shrinking to the ON-QC corridor just as demand and funding for services elsewhere reach critical mass. A policy of “ Go ahead and do it regionally” could exclude VIA altogether. (eg - If Calgary-Banff service wins favour, don’t assume VIA will be tagged to operate it).

While I don’t accept the premise that Sudbury Toronto service (just to pick the example) is a crying need, neither do I see it being considered in any rational and integrated way. (As to the Northlander, I don’t consider the known and notorious advocacy to date, capitalising on a reckless promise by a government and local MPP that should have known better, to be a sound business case). VIa seems to have the acumen to analyse these ideas (as shown by its efforts to build the business case for HFR) but it is muzzled about any growth initiatives. Abetter transportation policy would give these ideas a greater chance of rational study.

Whew. Wordy as ever.

- Paul

Very good post!

I can't quibble with any of it!

 

[Urban Sky]

I’m responding to @urbansky and others’ comments here, and not in the newest-created thread, because a) I don’t think we need more new threads and b) for the moment, I’m acquiescing to @urbansky ’s desire to limit discussion in the VIA Rail thread to the “here and now” of VIA’s network (although I’m not sure why we can’t discuss what VIA might become, or ought to become, in the same forum as we discuss what it is).

Thank you for using this thread and I will certainly respond later, but would you mind crediting the real @Urban Sky?

 

[Urban Sky]

I’m responding to @Urban Sky and others’ comments here, and not in the newest-created thread, because a) I don’t think we need more new threads and b) for the moment, I’m acquiescing to @Urban Sky's desire to limit discussion in the VIA Rail thread to the “here and now” of VIA’s network (although I’m not sure why we can’t discuss what VIA might become, or ought to become, in the same forum as we discuss what it is).

The question that we seem to drift into is “How do we advance passenger rail beyond what VIA Rail provides”

[...]

Whew. Wordy as ever.

- Paul

I unfortunately won't have the time today to answer this excellent post in the detail it deserves, but I outlined my vision for the "VIA Rail" thread and the three new ones I created in the last weeks in the "Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor" thread (i.e. the one I created just a few hours ago):

• The "VIA Rail" thread should be used only for discussions relating directly or indirectly with VIA's history (including CN/CP), present-day VIA and its various initiatives for the future (e.g. increased service in SWO, "Eastern Intercity", HFR, new fleet, Heritage Fleet Program). Discussions may include ideas to modify existing services, but should still acknowledge the reality and constraints the Canadian passenger rail sector (and especially: VIA) operates in.
• The thread "Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor" should be renamed to something like "Fantasy rail discussions" and accommodate any proposals or ideas which are not yet pursued by either VIA, Metrolinx or Ontario Northland and therefore don't fit into the existing threads for these three railroads.
• The thread "Transportation Policy in Canada" (i.e. this thread) should be used to discuss the government's approach to administering and regulating the rail industry and what would need to change to move certain proposal from the domain of fantasy into something which might actually become attainable.
• Finally, the thread "General railway discussions" is the right place for any rail-related discussions which don't fit into any of the above threads or any other existing thread.

I hope it becomes clear that I don't want to police or censor the discussions which we are having in this forum about my employer, but that I'm just frustrated that constructive discussions about present-day VIA and its struggles to improve passenger rail service with very limited means and resources are incessantly drowned by the ever-same ever-circling "Restore this service", "Make that service daily" and "We need trains everywhere" debates...

Anyways, have a good night, everyone!

 

[MisterF]

I would love to see the Trans-Canada developed so that it's a proper 4 Lane divided Highway from end to end. But realistically we don't need that anytime some. And the money would be better spent elsewhere.

The US built the interstates at enormous cost. Over half a trillion in today's dollars. Ostensibly for defence purposes as much as economic purposes. But we don't have the same defence concerns today. And a lot of the same economic concerns, Americans had then, are met by our railroads and airlines today.

I can't see the need for a 4 lane highway across the country. Sure, it would look look nice on a map, but Northern Ontario is massive and mostly empty, with very low traffic volumes. The cost for both construction and maintenance would be enormous. If safety or nation building are the goals, other projects would have better benefits for less money.

4 lane highways across expanses as big and empty as Northern Ontario are extremely rare or maybe even non-existent. There's no 4 lane highway across Australia or Russia for example. Or even going the length of the Nordic countries.

It's actually feasible for the United States to switch to 100% solar:

The video is almost two years old, but it's still relevant (especially with solar power being cheaper and more efficient than when the video was made).

I think 100% renewable will happen eventually. The cost of solar+power storage will continue to fall to the point where it's so cheap that it just won't be worth it to keep nuclear plants open anymore. How long that will take is anybody's guess.

 

[ec_traindriver]

I think 100% renewable will happen eventually. The cost of solar+power storage will continue to fall to the point where it's so cheap that it just won't be worth it to keep nuclear plants open anymore. How long that will take is anybody's guess.

It surely won't happen before the end of the century. You can't control the sun, and you can't indefinitely store unneeded electricity for future usage, so the only way a developed country could run entirely off renewables would be by building an infrastructure that has to produce enough surplus to cover the energy demands of the least favorable day of the year concerning energy production, plus a complex storage system capable to save enough energy to power the entire country in case of any kind of serious disruption.

Back a few months ago I calculated that a country like Italy, an industrialized nation of 60 000 000, would need to spend €25 000 BILLION for storage alone. If that number tells you nothing, suffice to know that is 14 times the entire nation's GDP.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'll happily take that bet. Renewables are so cheap, they are deflationary. They reduce the cost of energy and mobility. Faster adoption actually saves money. $26 trillion to be exact:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ter-solar-power-plan-will-make-energy-cheaper

 

[ec_traindriver]

I'll happily take that bet. Renewables are so cheap, they are deflationary. They reduce the cost of energy and mobility. Faster adoption actually saves money. $26 trillion to be exact:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ter-solar-power-plan-will-make-energy-cheaper

Cheap construction costs ≠ cheap energy. Quite the opposite, if you factor in the fact that all the extra capacity which is unneeded in the summertime and that produce almost nothing during wintertime has to be paid for both for CAPEX and OPEX. I don't know exactly how the energy market works on your side of the Pond but, here in Europe, the countries that have invested the most in renewables are the ones that consistently have higher energy bills against the EU average.

Besides, renewable plants owners have to be paid whether or not their plants produce electricity considering they all want to recoup the initial CAPEX, so who is willing to pay for a plant that is going to sit unproductive for a good third of the year, and risks to be producing energy that literally goes to waste for the remaining two thirds!?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't know exactly how the energy market works on your side of the Pond but, here in Europe, the countries that have invested the most in renewables are the ones that consistently have higher energy bills against the EU average.

Past =\= future. This is the real problem with talking about renewables. There's a lot of folks stuck on past prices and little to no storage built into the older projects. This is not the case today where the utilities themselves are saying it's cheaper to build new renewables with storage than, it is to keep operating existing fossil and nuclear generating assets.

NextEra CEO: 'Near-firm renewables cheaper than fossil-fuel power by 2025' | Recharge

Battery-backed wind and solar will be able to provide close to 24/7 power at less cost than gas- or coal-fired plants, says chief executive Jim Robo

www.rechargenews.com

 

[ec_traindriver]

Past =\= future. This is the real problem with talking about renewables. There's a lot of folks stuck on past prices and little to no storage built into the older projects. This is not the case today where the utilities themselves are saying it's cheaper to build new renewables with storage than, it is to keep operating existing fossil and nuclear generating assets.

NextEra CEO: 'Near-firm renewables cheaper than fossil-fuel power by 2025' | Recharge

Battery-backed wind and solar will be able to provide close to 24/7 power at less cost than gas- or coal-fired plants, says chief executive Jim Robo

www.rechargenews.com

Past isn't future, sure. But physics is physics, meteorology is meteorology, astronomy is astronomy.

Solar produces electricity only during the daytime with a capacity factor that varies throughout the day (talking about grid stability, ahem) and is inherently subjected to obstruction by clouds, smoke or smog, shade from trees and building structures. And considering that the amount of available sunlight is also determined by the latitude, with average capacity factors very rarely exceeding 30% — actually, most of them are close to 20–25% — with some notable lower capacity factors recorded in places like the Lauingen Energy Park (Bavaria, Germany), producing electricity with a hilarious 12% capacity factor. The German example I just mentioned is located near the 49th parallel which, AFAIK, is also known to represent the US–Canada border from British Columbia to Manitoba. Any serious solar project up there is just ridiculous.

Do you know what energy source produces electricity with a capacity factor always in the high 90s!? Nuclear. That's physics as well.

 

[Urban Sky]

Just a friendly reminder that the topic of this thread is transport policy discussions in Canada, not global energy policy discussions...

 

[afransen]

It surely won't happen before the end of the century. You can't control the sun, and you can't indefinitely store unneeded electricity for future usage, so the only way a developed country could run entirely off renewables would be by building an infrastructure that has to produce enough surplus to cover the energy demands of the least favorable day of the year concerning energy production, plus a complex storage system capable to save enough energy to power the entire country in case of any kind of serious disruption.

Back a few months ago I calculated that a country like Italy, an industrialized nation of 60 000 000, would need to spend €25 000 BILLION for storage alone. If that number tells you nothing, suffice to know that is 14 times the entire nation's GDP.

It's not so bad as you think. If you massively overproduce, your storage requirement goes down, and the surplus power can be used for energy intensive industrial processes like hydrogen, ammonia, etc synthesis, smelting, and so on. These industries can be made to work with a 50 or 60% duty cycle over the year in exchange for access to otherwise wasted/curtailed renewable energy for low cost.

Energy Report — RethinkX

We are on the cusp of the fastest, deepest, most profound disruption of the energy sector in over a century.

www.rethinkx.com

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not so bad as you think. If you massively overproduce, your storage requirement goes down, and the surplus power can be used for energy intensive industrial processes like hydrogen, ammonia, etc synthesis, smelting, and so on. These industries can be made to work with a 50 or 60% duty cycle over the year in exchange for access to otherwise wasted/curtailed renewable energy for low cost.

Energy Report — RethinkX

We are on the cusp of the fastest, deepest, most profound disruption of the energy sector in over a century.

www.rethinkx.com

I'm with @Urban Sky. Let's move the energy discussion elsewhere. It's hard to convince folks who have ideological adherence or recency bias on certain tech.

What mostly, is relevant to this thread, is that there will be tech that allows for the cheap production and storage of energy going forward. And it should be reasonable enough for us to decarbonize most of our transportation system over the next two decades. And all of it, over the next half century. Plans need to keep that in mind.

To this end, the government is being called to the carpet today by the Environment Commissioner, for "moving from failure to failure" on climate policy, in his words. Seems to be that some intercity rail investment, in populated corridors, could really help cut the miles traveled in private vehicles and airplanes, cutting emissions and improving productivity.

 

[afransen]

Frankly, things will largely happen regardless of government policy. Carbon tax may accelerate the transition slightly by accelerating investment decisions, but mostly those decisions will be driven by riding the global cost curve in reducing cost.

 

[ec_traindriver]

It's not so bad as you think. If you massively overproduce, your storage requirement goes down, and the surplus power can be used for energy intensive industrial processes like hydrogen, ammonia, etc synthesis, smelting, and so on. These industries can be made to work with a 50 or 60% duty cycle over the year in exchange for access to otherwise wasted/curtailed renewable energy for low cost.

Energy Report — RethinkX

We are on the cusp of the fastest, deepest, most profound disruption of the energy sector in over a century.

www.rethinkx.com

Exactly, "if you massively overproduce." As if that were a good thing. Like, if I were to massively overwork to death, I might become a millionaire. Or maybe I might rent out a tank to go buy some groceries. Also, I feel the urge to remember @kEiThZ that he's talking about overproduction as if "renewables" grew out from the soil and didn't have to be built. In fact, if we look at the materials throughput...

Anyway, I agree with @Urban Sky myself: this is the wrong topic.

The easiest and most effective way to decarbonize is through electrification, hydrogen is just an energy vector — and a very poor one, considering an overall efficiency close to 10%. Whether or not railroads want to decarbonize the industry (as if this was a given) is, unfortunately, something we can't control ourselves. In other (equally civilized) areas of the world, rail infrastructure is owned by the State and thus public money can be invested to solve the issues. AFAIK, the current trend in the industry in North America is spending the least amount of money, or possibly even divesting, to maximize revenue. I fail to acknowledge how this business model is ever going to decarbonize, but that is one of my many gaps of knowledge.

 

[ec_traindriver]

BTW, talking about transportation policies.

RFI (Italian Rail Network), contract update with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT): €31,7 billion of new investment (CA$46.9 billion).

Of those €31,7 billions:
— €2,7 billions will be invested to repair and stabilize tunnels, seismic and hydrogeologically unstable areas, to mitigate noise pollution and to eliminate level crossings;
— €3,6 billions for technological upgrades;
— €2,3 billions for regional rail;
— €0,2 billions for tourist lines;
— €1,9 billions for infrastructure upgrades in metropolitan areas;
— €0,9 billions for intermodal connectivity and airport rail links;
— €17,3 billions for infrastructure projects along the European TEN-T corridors; and
— €2,8 billions for HS/HC lines.

When you've got a publicly owned rail infrastructure, this and many other results can be achieved, for the benefit of the whole railway sector — private and public.

On the contrary, if you are going to be begging a private corporation to let your passenger trains pass their slow, heavy and constantly derailing freight trains…